- (1.)At the outset, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, invited our attention to the order dated 28.07.2008 which records that since Respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit to the effect that he has given up the claim of seeking any retiral benefits as Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission and his term has also come to an end, the Reference insofar as Respondent No. 1 is concerned has become infructuous. As regards Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the order records that proceedings of Reference may continue. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, submits that the term of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also come to end somewhere in 2008 and, therefore, the Reference against them has also become infructuous.
(2.)Mr. Anshuman Sinha, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, submits that the Reference has not become infructuous and is alive as against these Respondents because the question of retiral benefits and emoluments during the suspension period would be dependent on the report that may be sent by this Court to the President.
(3.)In Special Reference No. 1 of 1983 : 1990 4 SCC 262 Under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India decided on August 3, 1990, a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in para. 8 of the Report (pages 267 to 269) observed as follows:-
"8. Sri R.N. Mittal next contended that the reference must be treated to have become infructuous and need not be answered. As provided in Article 316(2), the tenure of office of a Member of a Public Service Commission is six years (subject to reduction of the period in case of the Member reaching the age of superannuation earlier, which is not the case here). The term of office of Sri Saini was to expire in May, 1986. The contention of Sri Mittal is that since his tenure expired in 1986, Sri Saini cannot now be removed from his office and it is, therefore, futile to examine the evidence recorded in the case in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, and to record a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against him. Referring to the provisions of Article 316, dealing with the appointment and term of office of Members, the learned Counsel emphasised the fact that the period of six years has been rigidly fixed making it clear that the period cannot be extended and the Member on the expiration of his term would be ineligible for re-appointment. Reliance was placed on several decisions dealing with disciplinary proceedings against the government servants, and it was argued that the same principle should be applicable to Members of the Public Service Commissions. Reference was made to the decisions in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, 1937 AIR(PC) 27; State of Assam and Ors. v. Padma Ram Borah, 1965 AIR(SC) 473; Dinesh Chandra Sangrna v. State of Assam and Ors., 1978 1 SCR 607; B.J. Shefat v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 1978 3 SCR 553and C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, 1989 Supp2 SCC 437An examination of these decisions would show that the cases depended on the interpretation and effect of the relevant service rules dealing with the conditions of service including provisions in regard to retirement and compulsory retirement. So far the present case is concerned, the conduct of a Member of the Public Service Commission is in question which has been considered important enough to be directly dealt with by the Constitution itself. The efficiency and purity of administration are greatly dependent on the right choice of the candidates to be entrusted with official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in whom the public may have full faith are selected, it was considered necessary to have a body with members of integrity, sincerity, and practical wisdom capable of commanding the confidence of the people for examining the merits of the candidates and make available to the appointing authorities their conclusion. Taking into account the possibility of their being subject to pressure, they were given special protection by the Constitution Under Article 317 providing that they - except in cases covered by Clause (3) - can be removed from their office only by an order of the President on the ground of misbehavior after an inquiry by the Supreme Court in this regard. The fact that the apex Court of the country was entrusted with such a duty indicates the great importance which has been attached to the office of the Member of the Commission. Under Clause (2) of Article 317, authority to suspend the Chairman or Member of the Commission pending an inquiry by the Supreme Court has been vested with the Governor in the case of a State Commission. If the position is examined in this background it is difficult to suggest that the conduct of a member of the Commission under scrutiny of this Court in a reference made by the President can be ignored on account of the tenure being over. The Regulations framed Under Article 318 by the Governor do not and cannot deal with removal and suspension of a Member of the Commission since they are exclusively covered by Article 317. Part V of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958, provides for the payment of pension with the proviso that a Member who has been removed from office shall not be entitled to the same. So far as the government servants are concerned, there are specific set of rules in regard to pension, inter alia dealing with cases in which government servants are found guilty of serious charges committed on the eve of their retirement. The rules governing many services also provide for extending the period of service of the government servant with a view to complete a pending disciplinary proceeding. In the case of a Member of the Commission, the Constitution, while dealing with the removal of a Member, does not provide for such contingencies. The issue, therefore, must be treated as a live one even after the expiry of a Member's tenure. The President of India has requested this Court to investigate into the conduct of a Member and this Court ought to convey its conclusions rather than refuse to answer the question. During the hearing of the case, we enquired from Sri Mittal, the learned Counsel for Sri Saini, whether, in the event of this proceeding being dropped as suggested on his behalf, he is ready to give up his claim for salary for the period he was under suspension and for pension, and Sri Mittal after taking instructions from Sri Saini, who was present in Court throughout the arguments, stated that the Respondent would not give up his claim and would demand arrears of his salary and pension."